Originally posted by MixmasterNash However, one of the first signs of a psuedo-science is a refusal to particpate in mainstream scientific structures and particularly the creation of their own scientific community.

THis is not the case. DCs are working with MDs, biologists, physiologists and others, collaboratively, to investigate the effects and synergies of various forms of chiropractic.

Dr. Donald Epstein, for instance, is working with the renowned Dr. Candace Pert, PhD, to investigate (among other things) the relationship between spinal tension, the release of said spinal tension through chiropractic, and the effect that these activities and states have on neuropeptides. This is a single example but there are literally hundreds more examples of completed and ongoing studies.

Clearly some people are engaging in pseudoscience under the label of chiropractic... I agree with you there. But to tar and feather the entire profession with the same brush is a gross and unfair generalization.

07-31-2003, 09:57 PM

nejar462

lol the reason i didn't post is because I was out, I'm sorry I can't sit around on wannabebigforums all day long, I mean a 23 thousand post count says a lot doesn't it? In fact I spent much more than I wanted to today in an attempt to at least get you guys to question yourselves. Believe it or not I questioned myself when you guys challenged me and provided sources.

I don't get why everyone is getting so pissed off about my attitude, I'm only matching what I've been shown. Anyone who's unbiased can see I'm very humble in my first post until everyone who's a freaking chiropractor nuthugger starts flaming me because I decided to question them. Then I say I wish chiropractors would get more involved in science, o but wait, what do I get from the "mature" and "grown" adults? O yeah more insults. Then while I'm out the "adults" make more insults for me in a unfunny sarcastic fashion. LOL @ my attitude being disgraceful. I'm still waiting for an experiment to prove me wrong.

Sorry homeyield, I didn't see your post because of everyone else's flaming and blind chiropractor nuthugging. Thank you for providing real evidence from what I think is an unbiased source even though you feel the need to flame me too why I have no idea. I looked at the source, they say what I've been saying the whole time, those with real chiropractic care feel better than the other ones, but the actual effect despite their best efforts couldn't be measured in anyway. Which makes me doubt how blind this study was.

"Williams et al published the results of a study in the BMJ that suggested that manipulation speeds the resolution of acute back pain, but may in itself not affect the long term outcome."

The long term effect showed there was no evidence either way. If the study can be found, (usually with these types of studies there is a price), it'll be good for both of us to look at. I tried to find it myself but couldn't.

08-01-2003, 07:34 AM

WillKuenzel

Quote:

Originally posted by nejar462 but the actual effect despite their best efforts couldn't be measured in anyway. Which makes me doubt how blind this study was.

I think the real problem with trying to get real data is measuring pain and its alleviation. Its extremely tough to say how pain varies from person to person and how much one experiences more than the other.

With diseases and other things, you can say that medicine either gets rid of it or it doesn't. With pain, how can you tell?

08-01-2003, 07:42 AM

Relentless

Quote:

Originally posted by HomeYield

I think the real problem with trying to get real data is measuring pain and its alleviation. Its extremely tough to say how pain varies from person to person and how much one experiences more than the other.

With diseases and other things, you can say that medicine either gets rid of it or it doesn't. With pain, how can you tell?

HY: Not even then . . . sure a drug may make you feel better by blocking the pain, but does it CURE the disease? In some cases yes (i.e. antibiotics vs bacteria). In all cases? No. In a lot of cases as well, there are variable responses to medicines or drugs... pharmacology presents itself as an exact science but the reality is that between the chaotic and variable nature of the human body, the interreactions of newly-introduced drugs with what the person is already taking, what they eat, or a hundred other things, there's no guarantee that the drug will help or even hurt more than it helps.

For a scary wake up call, do a little research on adverse drug reactions as a cause of death.

There are also some studies using EMGs and thermographic sensors and GSR to measure the physiological 'signs' of pain. The current study I mentioned with Epstein and Pert is another neat one in this regard, looking at the relationships of chiro to neuropeptides. Given some of the work Epstein is doing that interrelates spinal health/tension, musculature and mental/emotional state, I'm really keen to see the results/outcomes.

08-01-2003, 07:54 AM

WillKuenzel

Cal: Well, maybe that was a rough example. My girlfriend is currently working on getting her doctorate degree in pharmacy. She learns best by teaching so guess who gets to be the pupil. ;) I don't know nearly as much as I would like but what you said makes sense.

I'm almost apt to say that these could be more closely related or at least parallels in some sense.

Quote:

but the reality is that between the chaotic and variable nature of the human body, the interreactions of newly-introduced drugs with what the person is already taking, what they eat, or a hundred other things, there's no guarantee that the drug will help or even hurt more than it helps.

The same could be said here for chiropactors. Some might help, probably more often than not, but there are those times when it could be bad if everything isn't taken into full and careful consideration.

Quote:

There are also some studies using EMGs and thermographic sensors and GSR to measure the physiological 'signs' of pain.

That's what I was wondering about. I mean, we know what causes pain but do those show variances between different people and is an absolute measurement? That's the problem. The hardcore anti-chiro people will want to see hard proof when its going to be very difficult to analyze. There will definitely be some progress made but its pretty tough to gauge it.

08-01-2003, 08:06 AM

Tryska

Quote:

Originally posted by nejar462 ~~~~I'm sorry I can't sit around on wannabebigforums all day long, I mean a 23 thousand post count says a lot doesn't it?

~~~~I don't get why everyone is getting so pissed off about my attitude,

~~~~Anyone who's unbiased can see I'm very humble in my first post until everyone who's a freaking chiropractor nuthugger starts flaming me because I decided to question them.

you're getting flamed, primarily because you were talking out of your ass. as i said before it was apparent from your very first ever so humble comment that you have no idea how chiropractics practice and most likely were regurgitating someone else's veiwpoints.

then you started getting flamed for talking about gnomes and fairy dust or some other crap.

now you're pretty much getting flamed for being a jackass.

you might wanna quite while you are ahead.

08-01-2003, 09:14 AM

Paul Stagg

Mix - thanks for presenting your viewpoint.

HY brings something up - that some chiros do more harm than good. If you reference my earlier post - a good chiropractor knows his liimitations, and will not treat someone who needs attention from an MD.

There are indeed some chiros who believe and act as if they can cure everything. They are wrong.

From here out - if anyone can not participate in this discussion maturely, don't bother participating. It will save me the time of deleting your posts.

08-01-2003, 10:42 AM

raniali

i just want to bring up a point about "science" -- basically that people rely a little too much on it. science is a process of understanding and, as such, is incomplete in itself. i am a chemist, in graduate school and have spent several years working on in R&D at a NASA facility; i think i know something about 'science' and its process.

in most cases, conventional science begins to 'research' (i.e., understand) a topic, issue, process, or the like because it was first observed. in rare cases (like x-rays and penicillin) does science 'discover' something new. for centuries, people would chew on willow tree bark to alleviate pain. perhaps it worked because everyone just believed it did; you know, the placebo effect. would you chew on willow tree if you had a headache if science hadn't 'proved' it worked? well, thanks to all the millions of people who had enough faith in what worked prior to conventional science's approval, we now have aspirin. because it comes in a little white tablet, you now feel secure in using it. go figure.

anywho, the point is that just because 'science' hasn't given you enough proof doesn't mean the treatment isn't effective. if chiropractic care was merely the stuff of witch doctors and crazy faith healers, then i highly doubt money-hungry insurance companies would be including it in their plans (heck, i don't even have a co-pay when i go!) and their practices are becoming more recognized as effective treatment for many issues. i don't know about you, but i would much rather have someone externally fix my back instead of undergoing back surgery. count your blessings you don't have constant back pain -- it is NO FUN! perhaps when you have an injury or just get older and feel the effects of degenerative disks, you might swallow your pride and visit a chiro and be grateful that you have relief even if science didn't say it was ok.

08-01-2003, 11:03 AM

the doc

well said ali!

go chemistry :D

08-01-2003, 01:57 PM

nejar462

Homeyield-The study showed those with chiropractic care felt better sooners, thats for sure, but what it doesn't show any actual changes that could be observed, which makes me think this really is just a placebo effect.

Callahan-Sorry about insulting you it was wrong i'll admit it. If you can post some links to these studies I'd be really be happy to read some stuff and talk to you about it, my level of education is only high school, not graduate so I might not be able to keep up. BTW doesn't it bother you the chiropractic community doesn't actively seek out the 'quacks' to put a stop to their malpractice?

Raniali-As you can see I really believe in science, while it is a slow process it is a certain one. Many discoveries are verified with science and found through science as well. (Your point about willow bark holds true, but now that aspirin comes in the form it does its more potent and easier to use. Go figure science made something better.) I see your point, but I'd rather wait for science to prove it works unless it becomes a VERY desperate situation. FYI both of my parents had serious back problems, through proper diet, exercise, changing their sleeping positions, they got much better without chiropractice care. (I know, I just made a whole speech about anecdotal evidence). In fact many doctors we're close to said the same thing I did, its not based on science so don't use it.

About insurance companies, since chiropractic care is cheaper than MD care it makes sense doesn't it? Thats not a sign of effectiveness, its just a sign insurance companies know how to save money.

Tryska-Please look at Paul Stagg's post, they do us a big favor allowing us all to post on wannabebigforums for free, and some use this privelege a whole lot, maybe you should be more courteous.

08-01-2003, 02:03 PM

Tryska

if that was another jab on post counts nejar, you might want to read paul's message again. :)

08-01-2003, 02:06 PM

WillKuenzel

Quote:

Originally posted by nejar462 Homeyield-The study showed those with chiropractic care felt better sooners, thats for sure, but what it doesn't show any actual changes that could be observed, which makes me think this really is just a placebo effect.

Are you talking about actual movement of bones and muscles or something to make it feel better shown by using x-rays and such? What do you mean by changes? Would feeling better not be changes? I guess, I'm just a little lost by what you would like to see.

*edit to make it a little bit more clear which I think I failed at. :)

08-01-2003, 02:45 PM

raniali

Quote:

Originally posted by nejar462 In fact many doctors we're close to said the same thing I did, its not based on science so don't use it.

that was the ENTIRE point of my aspirin example -- it was NEVER based on science ... only historical use. yes, science made it better, more potent -- but it was still effective beforehand. i can understand your skepticism, but your arguments are becoming circular.

08-01-2003, 03:00 PM

PowerManDL

Aye.

Science is really nothing more than the quantification of observed phenomena.

So if you're observing something that works, the role of science is to say "lets figure out why" instead of saying "it can't be done."

08-01-2003, 03:52 PM

-TIM-

Quote:

Originally posted by MixmasterNash ...Does chiropracty work? Doubtless it does for many people...

How can you make that statement when the majority of people that actually go to a Chiropractor find relief?

I think one thing that people overlook when it comes to your back is that when left untreated, it can become untreatable. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there are 4 stages that group the severity of the spines condition. Once your back is so badly deteriorated and out of place, which seems to start at stage 3, then a Chiropractor or any other Dr. can only correct the spine so far. Your body basically gets beyond having the ability to fully heal itself. So in those cases yes, somebody would not find full relief by going to a Chiropractor. But they can still correct the spine to a certain degree to provide some form of relief. So to say that this form of medical attention doesn't work, well it's not an accurate statement by any means.

08-01-2003, 04:02 PM

-TIM-

Arnold and the Chiro

I live in Davenport, IA, home of Palmer Chiropractic. This is, I believe, the 2nd or 3rd largest school of Chiropractic teaching in the world. One of my friends who is in film production does a lot of videos for Palmer. One of the videos they shot took place at a conference supporting Chiropractic care and athletics. And who was their guest speaker? Arnold. They have a 10 minute one-on-one interview where he talked about how important Chiropractic care has been in his life and the health benefits he's been able to enjoy as a result of regularly visiting a Chiro. I know that a few of you are reading this and thinking whoop-dee-doo. But, here's a guy who fully supports what we're debating about and I don't think many would question his opinions or personal experiences when it comes to anything physical. I think the bottom line that's being overlooked in this debate is that no matter what you think of Chiro's, they do help people feel better. That's a fact. Whether you consider them a real Dr., a quack, witch doctor, voodoo master or whatever, if they make people feel better, then what's the point of downing their profession?

ali- I dont understand why you think my arguments are circular. Ok time to make a recap of my point.

Chiropractory as it currently stands is not based on science,(when i say based on science, I mean there's no real reason it should work, and there's no observable evidence that it does besides alleviation of pain), while many medical fields are. Chiropractors will benefit from moving away from pseudo science, and will benefit from becoming more scientific. Everyone should be skeptical of chiropractors (until the get scientifc backing) because what they do has no science backing it, and no tests so far have been able to prove it does anything other than provide relief from pain(which makes many people including me consider it as a placebo effect).

Homeyield-Umm, I'm sorry, I dont get what you're asking. Cold hard facts are all I want and I'll go see a chiropractor and retract everything I said with a sincere apology. X-rays would be nice.

Again if you find the studies that would make a great jumping off point.

08-02-2003, 02:11 PM

MixmasterNash

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Nissen How can you make that statement when the majority of people that actually go to a Chiropractor find relief?

I believe I said, "Does chiro work, doubtless it does for many people." Maybe my poor Internet English isn't working but let me rephrase: "There is no doubt that chiropractic works for many people." Meaning, "Yeah, I agree it works." Many vs. most is a different issue entirely.

I do not take it as fact that DCs always make people feel better. Are the majority of visits successful? Of course, because the majority of vists are by repeat customers. Folks who don't get relief probably won't go back. I don't have any numbers, so I'm arguing my point based on my understanding of the philosophy of science.

Nejar makes excellent points: I haven't seen much evidence that chiropractic care is significantly better than a placebo and theraputic massage. I'm still skeptical about the ideas of "alignment" or whatever. Chiropractic started with, has always had, and still does represent many pseudo-scientific concepts. I'm glad some of the ideas and being tested scientifically and hopefully better care for all will result.